Goodell Wants To Eliminate Kickoffs - Floats Novel Idea

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by cowboyeric8

Exactly no one is forcing them to play.

Yeah and if they keep drastically changing the game I will quit watching.

That's a real mature analysis.

The league wants to make sure that fewer players end up with brain damage. You, on the other hand are saying "screw 'em! they know what they are in for."

Why don't we just put them out there without equipment and make them fight real lions or bears or something.

[cowboyeric8]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

That's a real mature analysis.

The league wants to make sure that fewer players end up with brain damage. You, on the other hand are saying "screw 'em! they know what they are in for."

Why don't we just put them out there without equipment and make them fight real lions or bears or something.

Okay...that's very drastic and not at all what I said.

They know the risks, it isn't slavery unlike Adrian Peterson's opinion.

I played football, suffered two concussions, broken leg, tore every ligament in my ankle, torn ACL, and a broken jaw. Trust me I know all about the risks. I enjoyed the game and I don't regret a thing. Did I understand I could end up doing permanent damage, yes but to play was worth the risk.

I'm all for making sure the players know what they are getting into and to tell someone if they don't feel right. But many play through it which is what gets them in trouble.

Changing the game isn't the answer.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

it is about 20% for fake kicks at 15 yards.

http://www.drivebyfootball.com/2012/...urth-down.html

Onside kicks are successful 26% of the time.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...ide-kicks.html

The margin of error for both of these outcomes statistically indistinguishable, mostly because of the small sample sizes involved.

So it is not quit the same but it is withing 6%, which is fairly close I would think.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by cowboyeric8

Okay...that's very drastic and not at all what I said.

They know the risks, it isn't slavery unlike Adrian Peterson's opinion.

I played football, suffered two concussions, broken leg, tore every ligament in my ankle, torn ACL, and a broken jaw. Trust me I know all about the risks. I enjoyed the game and I don't regret a thing. Did I understand I could end up doing permanent damage, yes but to play was worth the risk.

I'm all for making sure the players know what they are getting into and to tell someone if they don't feel right. But many play through it which is what gets them in trouble.

Changing the game isn't the answer.

The NFL has clear scientific evidence that associate blows to the head with a host of neurological problems later in life (or even immediately as we've seen with guys like Chris Henry). If you can change aspects of the game to reduce these blows to the head, you do so. Kickoffs are where a large number of blows to the head occur. That makes the kickoff a reasonable target for change.

Do you honestly think that if we keep seeing guys with crippling neurological disorders and more and more suicides that the NFL is going to be allowed to simply keep doing what it has been doing?

Smart organizations get ahead of the curve on these issues and make changes before they get forced to.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

It is presently 46% of the total number of kick off attempts. However, that number is deflated by onside kicks. You factor out onside kicks and that # is going to be around 50%.

That is up from about 16% before the rule change.

So half or nearly half of all kickoffs result in a BORING outcome.

That's interesting, I heard that number to be around 38% on ESPN. Did you draw that number from the same link you posted earlier?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

"Nobody is forcing them to play."

Nobody is forcing you to watch. Go watch MMA or something if you like to see concussions and brain damage.

But what happens if we take your advice and we do go watch something else? I think you need only look at Pro Boxing to get that answer.

If we do start watching something else, then this game dies and that's the problem. You can't just change the game to serve a certain segment of people. You risk killing the fan base and that's a problem.

[cowboyeric8]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

The NFL has clear scientific evidence that associate blows to the head with a host of neurological problems later in life (or even immediately as we've seen with guys like Chris Henry). If you can change aspects of the game to reduce these blows to the head, you do so. Kickoffs are where a large number of blows to the head occur. That makes the kickoff a reasonable target for change.

Do you honestly think that if we keep seeing guys with crippling neurological disorders and more and more suicides that the NFL is going to be allowed to simply keep doing what it has been doing?

Smart organizations get ahead of the curve on these issues and make changes before they get forced to.

Fair enough. But it doesn't seemed to have stopped boxing.

I can see it now a punt to "kick-off" the super bowl, or better yet a 4 and 15 to "kick-off" the super bowl, nothing builds up excitement more than that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

Umm, half of them are touchbacks. That's already half the kickoffs out of the pool of interesting.

If half of them are touchbacks, it would seem that the impacts associated on half of the plays are greatly minimized.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

That's a real mature analysis.

The league wants to make sure that fewer players end up with brain damage. You, on the other hand are saying "screw 'em! they know what they are in for."

Why don't we just put them out there without equipment and make them fight real lions or bears or something.

The ratings would most certainly be GREAT if that happened.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

But what happens if we take your advice and we do go watch something else? I think you need only look at Pro Boxing to get that answer.

If we do start watching something else, then this game dies and that's the problem. You can't just change the game to serve a certain segment of people. You risk killing the fan base and that's a problem.

Pro boxers do get damaged. But that is a far far smaller sport and one in which the sport has changed. Boxers used to fight huge numbers of fights. Now you'd be hard pressed to find guys going it more than 2-3 times a year.

Fights also used to be 15 rounds. Again, the sport changed.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

The NFL has clear scientific evidence that associate blows to the head with a host of neurological problems later in life (or even immediately as we've seen with guys like Chris Henry). If you can change aspects of the game to reduce these blows to the head, you do so. Kickoffs are where a large number of blows to the head occur. That makes the kickoff a reasonable target for change.

Do you honestly think that if we keep seeing guys with crippling neurological disorders and more and more suicides that the NFL is going to be allowed to simply keep doing what it has been doing?

Smart organizations get ahead of the curve on these issues and make changes before they get forced to.

The game is a product. Yeah, you can change the product but what might happen is that you might change it so much that you end up with Tabb instead of Coke and your market goes away.

It's a valid point.

[cowboyeric8]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

If half of them are touchbacks, it would seem that the impacts associated on half of the plays are greatly minimized.

So essentially we are talking about around 6 plays a game? All these changes for 6 plays is ridiculous.

Just leave it alone.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

If half of them are touchbacks, it would seem that the impacts associated on half of the plays are greatly minimized.

And if you could cut that other half out the risk would be reduced even more substantially

Plus you'd get a whole lot more excitement than touchbacks offer

[cowboyeric8]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

Pro boxers do get damaged. But that is a far far smaller sport and one in which the sport has changed. Boxers used to fight huge numbers of fights. Now you'd be hard pressed to find guys going it more than 2-3 times a year.

Fights also used to be 15 rounds. Again, the sport changed.

And boxing spectators have dropped.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

Pro boxers do get damaged. But that is a far far smaller sport and one in which the sport has changed. Boxers used to fight huge numbers of fights. Now you'd be hard pressed to find guys going it more than 2-3 times a year.

Fights also used to be 15 rounds. Again, the sport changed.

It's a far far smaller sport now but numbers of fighters are really not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the product and that is represented by viewers which translate into dollars.

The sport has changed. 30 years ago, I can recall parties where all the family and friends got together to watch fights. It was a big deal and much more popular. Now, it's not that big a deal. I can't remember the last time I went to a party for a Boxing Match.

The sport has changed but that doesn't mean that the change has helped the sport. It's on the verge of dying.